Shots Across The Bow

interesting theory. Your respect for Old Serpent Head is well deserved. My feeling is, though, that you are just a tad impatient in the prediction.

drumroll, please....

The reason they are going to let Kerry take the dive on the forgeries is because they want to make sure he loses, not because they want him to withdraw. When he loses, he automatically primes Hillary for the '08 race. If Kerry was to actually win, it would push her into '12 and even that would be a hard run, because it would be coming after (presumably) 8 years of a Democratic president (maybe just 4 years and then 4 years of a Repub). So, its plant the forged docs or wait for a worse opportunity in '12. The Clintons know that '08 is absolutely perfect timing, because after all this red ink funding Iraq, there will be a morning after headache coming about '06.

Maybe I'm missing something - where exactly is the national groundswell of support for Hillary Clinton as a presidential candidate in ANY year?

Now I'm probably one of the biggest (non-party flack) Clinton apologists around. I respected Hillary as a First Lady, and I'm glad she was able to move into the Senate.

But where, exactly, does the support for Hillary for president exist outside of the the Party heirarchy itself (and its most dedicated followers) and the media?

While I would vote for Bill or Al (well, pre-meltdown Al) over Kerry I wouldn't toss my support to Hillary - simply because I don't see what she could bring to the presidency.

Do rank-and-file Democrats around the country (outside of NY) really see a need for a Hillary-for-President campaign in any year?

I mean, she's not Evita no matter how you look at her.

Here's another thing I don't get, and this has to do with the memo scandal:

* CBS and Dan Rather present a story that's extremely damaging to President Bush. The story relies heavily on previously 'undiscovered' documents.
* Those documents provide evidence that not only did President Bush not fulfill his duties as a National Guard member, but that there was political influence used to "sugarcoat" his record.

Even if the memos were 100% accurate, why would they be "extremely damaging"? Knowing he skipped guard duty 30+ years ago, and got Dad to cut around a lot of red tape has nothing to do with how he runs the country today.

If it were one rung in a ladder of shirked duty and preferential treatment that stretched all the way through the Texas Governor's office to the White House today it would be different, but as one incident so long ago...why would that nullify his qualifications for being president?

If he'd gone on a murderous rampage and shot up a grocery store while AWOL - sure. If Kerry did like he said and commited some of those atrocities against civilians in 'Nam, that would cast serious doubt on his qualifications and fitness to be CIC.

I don't see why what Bush did is treated the same way?

Hillary is not universally liked. Even among women. I sense this great fear of her in the Republican rank and file. It's unfounded. Besides, Rudy Giulianni would blow her out of the water if he decides to run in '08.

Come on now, everybody knows it's the guys and gals over at MoveOn.org, who are pissed as hell that Kerry got Dean booted out in the primaries. They think that Kerry has gone soft on their "anti-war" issues.

Except this isn't the first I've heard this theory. Heck, it was floated even before the DNCC.

One major flaw in the theory is that it is too late to get anybody new on the ballots, unless the Supremes intervene. Sounds good, though.

Actually, I think if you look at CBS's "unanswered questions" about President Bush's National Guard service, it seems to me that they are implying that he refused to take the medical exam and was subsequently bumped from the National Guard because he was having problems with substance abuse and/or mental problems. It was probably meant to tie in with the Kitty Kelly thing this week to insinuate this very thing. It is quite clear that CBS and Dan Blather believe that President Bush skipped the exam for a non-trivial reason and really left the Guard under a cloud, though POTUS managed to get an honorable discharge through (somehow) getting his father to pressure the TANG. That's where I think they are trying to go, but they obviously can't find the smoking gun, got frustrated and, well, the rest is now history...

...but are you paranoid enough?

A bit of a stretch...like all conspiracy theories it takes too many people to keep quiet...somebody would crack. To me what is a more interesting question is whether the forgerer can be hidden....Lots of pressure out there...

Interesting theory. I'm not sure I buy it, but an interesting theory nonetheless.

To Barry: why does it matter (to this theory) if rank-and-file Dems around the country aren't thrilled with Hillary? One could easily argue that the actors here are Clintonites, not the Kerry campaign per se. On a three-week campaign, Hillary could energize the non-thrilled simply by riding to the rescue. And she could very well win by riding the hype before the American PeopleTM have had a full opportunity to consider what they're buying.

Hey, get in line. I called the "Torricelli Option" back in July, and someone pointed out to me that (Boortz? I think) called it earlier than that, even.. :)

That being said, I don't see any way the Democrats don't try something like that. Hillary won't survive a primary run, and a long campaign. So if she wants to be President... either a Veep slot (first) or a last-minute substitution is the only way to go. This way, that Evil Genius Rove doesn't get a chance to use her record against her, no time to gear up the 527s which would otherwise sprout against her, and meanwhile, the Moveon.org adn the Take America Back just move into promotion of Clinton, no problem for them.

Very entertaining, but you're giving too much credit to too many people IMO.

I have to agree with John, this is to make sure Kerry looses, not that he withdraws.

Hilary for '08 is the plan

No... it's internal sabotage so Hillary can ride to the rescue in 2008

Everybody's missing the "real" story in the CBS forgery scandal. That infamous "th" isn't a superscript ... it's a hanging chad. I know this for a fact, because the information was delivered to me from a hovering black helicopter late last night. "Say hello to Dan," the pilot shouted, before pulling pitch out of there.

Assuming that your speculations are correct, the question then becomes: "Who would step into the failing campaign?"

There are two criteria:

1) It has to be someone loyal enough to take a big hit for the team; or, perhaps someone starry-eyed enough that they think thet they could play out the scenario from Fletcher Knebel's "Dark Horse."

2) It has to be someone who can help the downticket candidates and stop the erosion of Democratic seats in the House and Senate.

Now option (2) means that they toss the idea of swing voters (which they seem to be doing) and concentrate on getting out the base. Option (1) means that the candidate needs to provide more than a little unrealistic "call to the conscience of the party," i.e., a moonbat.

Paging Dr. Dean! Dr. Dean, please call DNC headquarters!

My suspicion is that the front runner in '08 will be Howard Dean, myself, who will have remade himself by then and gotten away from his anti-war record--but all the anti-war types will still love him.

I don't understand. Why does a forgery scandal make it any easier for Kerry to drop out and be replaced on the ballot by Hillary or someone else? You say in one paragraph:

"...there would be major legal obstacles, including problems getting on all the ballots if they replace a candidate following the convention."

Then, a few sentences later, you say that Kerry will be persuaded by party bigwigs to step down and be replaced because of the forgery scandal. Isn't that a contradiction? Am I missing something?

...and then if Hillary turned out not to be exciting enough they could dummy up ANOTHER scandal and replace her with ANOTHER candidate! Hey, there are still several weeks to go before the balloting starts.

Heck, why not demand both a recount and a chance to re-run the whole thing again, this time with a different candidate!

Democrats it seems to me meet at least one definition of a fanatic (someone who, when he loses sight of his purpose, redoubles his effort).

I think Rather got the forged material from his daughter, Robin, and Ben Barnes who are big operatives in the Democratic Party in Texas. Thus, he is willing to go to the mat to protect his daughter, even if it means losing his job.

Personally, I began dismissing your theory late last week and concluded by the weekend that it was the wrong path to go down. However, don't misuderstand me, I would bet a partisan Democrat is behind these documents; that is a no brainer, IMO. They fit too neatly into the missing puzzle pieces of the Democrat's AWOL theory that has been around since 2000.

What I mean is that it is more than political suicide for Rather and Kerry. It is political suicide for every single major campaign official currently involved in the Kerry campaign, directly involved or not. Any future campaign they work for is subject to being tarred and feathered by these incidents. Any campaign run by any of these guys/gals would be subject to too many questions related to credibility; the campaign staff would be the main issue. I don't suspect Carville, or any one else, would attempt this type of thing without McAuliffe's approval (albeit hands-off), and there is no way he'd sacrifice that many for a potential Hillary 04/08.

If, however, it were conceivable to manage this type of operation, CBS would have had to collapse this weekend and McAuliffe would have had heads rolling early yesterday at the latest. The clock has been ticking too long.

In the end, if you are right, this is a Willy Horton type campaign killer times 100, it would hobble the Democrat party's strategists brigade for a generation or more.

If I were the National Democrat Party, I'd be more worried about the Legislative than the Executive. What's the relationship between campaining to win one side and damage to the other?

what about if they slide little john up on the ballot and slip in the doctor on the back end?

You're WRONG! That's "W" for WRONG. It's so clear I really don't know how anybody could miss it:

CBS signature prime time drama is the CSI series. You know, Miami, Las Vegas & the new one in NY. The series debut is nigh. The debut will feature a week long three episode (one each, Miami, LV & NY - ending in NY) review of the documents in question. And guess what, the crime scene guys will prove beyond any doubt the veracity of those documents. Don't be surprised if they don't find additional truth as well. Like proving the Kitty Kelly charges about W using coke at Camp David, etc.

It's so obvious...

The problem with this theory is that Kerry would have to be removed from the ballot in all 50 states. Each individual state is responsible for creating their state ballots, so the Kerry campaign couldn't just call their cronies in the New Jersey hierarchy and tell 'em to put Hillary on the ballot. This is something they would have to fight in all 50 states. While this may work pretty well in New Jersey, there's no friggin' way that Florida is going to fall for this. What will probably happen is that some states would have Kerry, some would have Hillary Clinton, and it would be a gigantic mess for the Dems. (Something similar happened in the 1860 election)

Hey...

Never attribute to Genius what can as easily be explained by stupidity.

Well, I am not completely convinced it came from the DNC opperatives because it would not only go be a blow for Kerry, but it would be a blow to the entire DNC.

I have a theory - you can visit my shnazzy site to find out.

Stu Silverstein has a simpler theory (think "Occam's Razor)that explains Dan Rather's stonewalling over at his blog "Pick & Choose" (http://www.pickandchoose.blogspot.com/). Page down to the post dated 9/11 titled "However Improbable.."

Why does someone new need to get on the ballots? All that is needed is for the electors for Kerry to vote for his replacement instead.

The idea that this was done by someone else in the Democratic Party is interesting - what if it were someone (or someones) who think the party has swung w-a-a-a-a-y too far to the Left, and are afraid if Kerry is elected the hijacking of the Democrats will be complete? Someone who would benefit by the far-left wing being discredited, leaving the moderate wing back in power of the DNC?

Which would then clear the way for cooler heads in the Democratic Party to prevail, like Lieberman?

Or even a Republocrat like Zell Miller?

Thomas Lifson wrote a piece back in May of this year floating a very similar theory. In his version, it was Paul Tsongas (coincidentally the prior occupant of Kerry's senate seat), not Bob Torricelli, who provided the inspiration. Paul Tsongas had been treated for cancer when he ran for president, and concerns about his health featured prominently in attacks by his rivals during the primaries.

Kerry has been treated in the past for prostate cancer; he could step aside for "health reasons," leaving Hillary to slide into the gap at the last minute, picking up sympathy votes while giving the Bush team almost no time to attack. It's just plausible enough to make the hair stand up on the back of your neck.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3532

Assuming she retains her Senate seat in '06, Hillary Clinton would be a disaster for the Democrats if she were nominated. Only a fool would assume women would vote for her simply because she's a woman. To suggest such is actually quite insulting. Blacks don't vote for blacks simply because of their skin color, and women don't vote for females simply because of their gender. So that whole notion is rubbish.

Coming from New York,(heh) the bluest state in the country,she brings nothing to the ticket. The feminist vote is already invested in the Kerry campaign, and if they can't deliver him, they wont be able to deliver her. And I would say she has even less appeal to Southerners and blue collar union guys than Kerry did, if that's possible.

In short, I am amazed that people so blithely assume she will get her party's nomination. The democrats would have to be idiots to select her. "Of course, there are idiots"

I also think the 60 mins story was not significantly damaging even if it was true. The theory that this is an attempt to sink Kerry so Clinton can run in 08 is much more plausible than replacing Kerry this late in the game. You can pull it off in NJ, but the rest of America will not let it fly.
Finally, how about the theory that the Kerry camp just sucks? they have no message and no candidate and that is finally becoming clear? Lets not get sucked into elaborate conspiracy theories, or you'll find you are as crazy as the moveon and Moore folks.

Ummm...it was BOB Torricelli, who was replaced by Frank Lautenberg

"Only a fool would assume"

So who nominated Kerry?

I wouldn't put it past the Clintonistas, but all I can see is Hillary gets trounced four years earlier.

If you think the McAuliffe Rove theory doesn't have support, check out this missive from MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, a Koolaid drinker nonpareil. And no,
it is not a forgery!

From: "Olbermann, Keith (NBC Universal, MSNBC)"
To: "'M Morahan'"
Subject: RE: Cue Twilight Zone theme
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 09:46:45 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-UCE-Filter-Settings: 90_OPT_OUT
X-Spam-Score: undef - spam-scanning disabled
X-Scanned-By:UCE Filtering Service (uce . ieee . org)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin

Karl Rove's done it before, Genius. Why wouldn't he try to fool his own
side? How long has he been fooling you?

Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 10:46 AM
To: Keith.Olbermann@msnbc.com
Subject: Cue Twilight Zone theme

Hey Olbertwit,

One would think you'd be in the business of boosting what little
credibility you have by pointing out the lack of such by your competitors.
But you're too dense and partisan to see an opening.

"2) MSNBC's Keith Olbermann sees a grand conspiracy in "how
the documents came to be so quickly and thoroughly refuted on a
right-wing Web site not two hours after they were first revealed
on CBS." Picking up on how a FreeRepublic.com poster, "Buckhead,"
had first suggested a 1970s typewriter could not have produced the
memo showcased by 60 Minutes, on Monday's Countdown Olbermann ran
through the blogger's resume and concluded, ever so ominously: "So
the Killian documents come out and are almost immediately
questioned by a lawyer with Republican ties and are distributed to
other news organizations without comment by the White House and
they suddenly have one of their principal endorsers retract his
endorsement. How many rats do you smell?"

-- "Am I out on my own on this, though, Craig? Are you going
to join me out here in science fiction land?"

No.

Rod Serling would love you.

You don't make sense, Mr. Shot Across the Bow. You clearly said that "There's no way for him [Kerry] to drop out now" and that there would be legal obstacles and ballot problems for any replacement, but then you go on and argue for the theory you just shot some holes in.

Believe me--the forgeries were planned, but the exposure and investigation were not. This will torpedo the Democratic party this year, in 2008, and for the next 50 years.

This scenario was examined in the August 28th post "The DKDH Movement" on The Blind Hen.
http://theblindhen.blogs.com

Everyone is giving so much credit to egotistical fools (and that includes Carville, almost on par with Rather). The MoveOn.org people did this, I'm just about sure. They are amateurs that relied on the preponderance of liberal media as cover. The Hillary Theory is possible, I guess (ie..paving the way to 08), but it is such a huge gamble for the Democrats, well....read my first sentence.

I sense this great fear of her in the Republican rank and file.

As a member of the Republican rank-and-file, I can tell you the fear is there all right. Just like the way a starving dog fears a side of beef.

The idea Republicans are afraid of Hillary gets a lot of belly laughs among the Republicans I know.

You forgot to put [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] around your thesis. At least I hope you forgot because it is batfuck insane. :)

OH MY GOD!

You forget that this is impossible, as John Kerry is an Alien Grey from Zeta Reticuli and they would never allow this graduate experiment in human mass conditioning to fail.

The Greys are fair, but firm. After their first Replicant, Howard Dean, melted down on a stage in Iowa, they refused to pack it in and were able to move Kerry into position.

I have this on good authority from my sources in the Illuminati, most of whom share their secrets with each other while being drunk as a department store Santa.

Watch the Skies!

Problems w/ the above conspiracy theory:

1) How damaging the documents are is questionable. Bush's military record isn't the centerpiece of his campaign, and he defeated Gore in '00 despite similar stories (shirking Guard duty, drug problems).

2) The story could easily be spun. For example, how many Americans did similar things to avoid Vietnam? Clinton did, and beat two decorated war veterans in '96 & '92. How many liberals went to Canada or burned draft cards? Point is, the idea that many Americans found ways to avoid Vietnam isn't too solid a point, I think. I don't think it scares the GOP. Only reason the Dems are running w/ it, is to give a not-so-pacifist spin to their platform.

3) The source of the documents could come from anywher, yes.

4) Yep, they were cheap fakes. But it only seems like that in hindsight. If you released them w/o expecting such close scrutiny, you'd be less concerned. And they were leaked to CBS, a pro-Dem media platform. Unlike bloggers, too many "analog" journalists still haven't seen the meteor hit (as in dinosaurs & extinction).

5) Dan Rather might just be an idiot. There's a difference between sophistry & rational intelligence. Ayn Rand makes that distinction quite clear. Rather & his ilk remind me of characters from "Atlas Shrugged."

6) Yes, both the Dems & GOP are starting to gear up their "dirty tricks" in the election year. Though I think it's more rhetoric than actually dirty tricks. Heck, one could argue the GOP funds the NYC anti-RNC protests in a clever ploy to make Dems look like complete ranting lunatics.

7) Dan Rather may be about to retire, but CBS news ins't about to close shop. So having him be a sacrificial lamb would work in a digital medium (like blogs), but not in analog medium (network news). Even if Rather agreed to act as sacrificial lamb, the network would look after its best interests -- which include surviving as a reputable news source after '04.

8) I certainly do believe Hillary wants a run in '08. But I'm not so sure about the logics of sabbotaging the campaign. I mean, they might want to (and accidentally help Kerry lose to prime for '08). But Kerry's original staffers are still around, and they'd sense something. Don't you think?

9) There's the assumption that the Dems know they're losing, and badly. Are they? Or is that wishful thinking projecting itself into the future as fact? And even if, objectively, we could predict a massive Dem defeat. Do the Dems really know this? What if they don't? Then it'd take away their incentive along that line of argument.

Bottom line: I don't think this is some vast leftist conspiracy. I think Rather screwed up, I think groupthink took over at CBS, and I think this'll (hopefully!) force news networks to never overestimate their role again.

Clinton for Speaker of the house
Very nice, but I disagree with stage one. Stage one of the Hillary campaign is Bill's campaign to become speaker of the house. The Clintons primary effort is for the Dems to gain a majority in the house and then Bill convinces the dems to draft him to become Speaker (One does not need to be a representative to be speaker). Then, Bill becomes a de facto Prime minister and foil to the Bush lead "Republican Juggernaut". Unfortunately for them if Kerry goes down, he takes the house with him.

The theory sounds interesting, but has some problems as pointed out in the previous comments.

However, how about a slight twist to the theory based on this comment:

"Hillary won't survive a primary run, and a long campaign. So if she wants to be President... either a Veep slot (first) or a last-minute substitution is the only way to go."

and this commentary:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/commentary.html

"But now we are in the middle of September, and you have to wonder just what John Edwards is bringing to the table."

So, to add another twist to the theory, what if the memos are linked to Edwards so that he can be replaced by Hilary. :0

Of course, I actually doubt that any of this would happen, but it is an interesting idea...

What would happen right now if Kerry needs to
withdraw due to a health related reason?
Couldn't john Edwards step up to the top spot
and the DNC provides another Veep candidate.
Might not need to change the ballots.

I'm going with Carole's comment - he got the docs from his daughter. That's the first explanation I heard that makes perfect sense.

Legal issues aside, self groomed Kerry has spent the last 30+ years of his life waiting for this moment in time...no way he goes down for Hillary without a fight. His ego is much larger than his love for his party. Besides, he has probably convinced himself that he can win this election.

P.S.: Should this become a TV series or a big screen movie?

I suspect that these blatant plants are an attempt by a faction at CBS to force Rather into retirement. If not hara-kiri.

I have been tootin' this horn for weeks, nay,
months. Nobody buys it.

Some argue that the ballots in each state would
have to be changed.

Wouldn't be the first time the dems sought relief in the courts would it?

I will not sleep so well until I see W, hand
on Bible, swearing in. Until then ... as I told
my old Mom, all bets are off.

Steel

I think the likely forger is not someone from the DNC paving the way for Hillary, but someone much lower on the food chain. The "missing" documents conveniently cover ALL the points made by the Bush-was-AWOL moonbats about missed physicals, etc.

Plus your theory requires threading the needle between Dan Rather's stupidity and the MSM's curiosity. The docs would have to be good enough to get past Rather but poor enough to be found out by the media. I don't believe it.

One cannot totally ignore the element of criminal liability here. THere is a more than small chance that CBS and/or the DNC, and/or the Kerry team knowingly distributed nationally fraudulent material with the intention of influencing a presidential election.

"What? Flee, in our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!"
- Grand Moff Tarkin, "Star Wars"

I don't buy the Toricelli Option/Hillary to the Rescue scenario. Kerry's going to go down to the bitter end in 2004.

Despite the caveats offered by others (including his critics), it'd be no surprise if Rather knew that the memos were fakes. Just look at who CBS went to for "authentication" ... as well as who they declined to speak with or whose doubts they ignored. Rather had to be at least suspicious of the documents' validity, but decided to run with the story anyway. He wasn't "duped."

If MoveOn was the originator of the fakes, Rather'd have no reason to shield them - in fact, it'd be in his interest and that of the Kerry campaign to sell them out. Rather could save his job and the reputation of CBS by falsely claiming to have been snookered, and the Kerry people could avoid major damage by distancing themselves from the moonbats.

That Rather won't disclose his source, despite what it'll cost him and CBS, suggests DNC or Kerry camp involvement. If they're exposed, the damage will be so great that it'll even rub off on Hillary if she jumps in. She's too smart for that.

Besides, Kerry's ego is too massive for him to just step aside - especially in favor of Madame Hillary. A Toricelli attempt would trigger a civil war within the donkey party, less than 60 days before the election. Even if Hillary were to oust Kerry, the resulting discord and recrimination within the ranks, coupled with no time to campaign effectively, would likely result in Hillary's probable crushing defeat in 2004 and her reputation as "damaged goods" in 2008.

Hillary's lying low these days for a reason, and it's to return as her party's "savior" in 2008, against a presumably weaker Republican opponent, a donkey party even more determined to regain power, and an electorate that'll more likely be suffering from a combination of war fatigue/Republican fatigue. Associating herself with what political historians will remember as one of the most disastrous campaigns in modern memory isn't consistent her political savvy and survival instinct.

Dogman's comment got me thinking about something that has been bothering me. There is an assumption out there that George H.W. Bush (Bush 41) was some all-powerful Republican Texas politician in the early 70's despite his losing a Senate race, despite the fact that most Texas officeholders were Democrats and despite the fact that he was working for President Nixon, the most hated politician in America.

It strains credulity that if Bush was a drunken womanizer strung out on drugs when he should have been flying or supervising clerks who used IBM Selectrics in an Alabama Air Force hanger, some anti-Nixonite wouldn't have tried to embarass the Nixon Administration and the future Bush 41 by blowing the whistle on his prodigal son. People actually were experimenting with the politics of personal destruction back then, even as they experimented with proportional spacing and superscript.

Here's what I think the problem with this whole story is: TANG service, like a lot of National Guard Service and Military Reserve service, was much looser back in those days than participants want to admit. The Guard was a mixture of ex-active duty "hard-asses" and individuals whose loyalty was more to their civilian careers. Few who were in the Guard at that time want to admit that overall it was easy duty, but they can point to Bush as a beneficiary of common "easy duty" practices" without acknowledging that those practices were widespread.

When I got out of the active duty military in the late 70's and visited Guard and Reserve units to find a slot, I was shocked at the casual attitudes and practices compared to the "hard-ass" infantry unit I had served wth in Germany--and my recollection of our toughness has probably grown with time. Nowadays, Guard and Reserve units routinely see active duty and if they're not "hard-asses," they die.

We make a huge mistake by judging people's actions from the past based on our standards today. Viet Nam was an unpopular war and when John Kerry returned from it, he rode that wave out of a mixture of calculation and conviction. I don't agree with his choice, but he was a man of his time. TANG was probably a cushy job as military service goes and Bush took advantage of that, especially as he saw other potential career paths open. He was a man of his time.

What matters is whether Kerry or Bush is the right man for their times right now. They both probably would disavow a lot of what they did in the 70's if they were allowed to be honest, so judging them on that faraway period is a distracting parlor game.

Seriously, the reason is this:

Kerry supporters saw the success of the Swift Boat Vets. They assumed that the SBVT stuff was all lies, because, hey, it couldn't possibly be true -- this was their candidate. So they thought "OK, the way to win is to do smears". They didn't bother doing a very good job of the fakes, because they thought that didn't matter, because it hadn't mattered to the SBVT.

Note that CBS seemed unable to distinguish between the veracity of the allegations, and the authenticity of the documents. They said they had authenticated the documents, when in fact they had only attempted to verify the allegations with another source. The idea that the documents would be examined directly did not occur to them.

Okay, I read this theory way back in February on Ldot by a poster named Allegra. Over and over she said Kerry would never be on the november ballot because of Hillary.

CBS is busy rounding up the remaining member of the IMF (Impossible Mission Force) to take on the VRWC.

IMF Voice on Tape (AKA Bob Johnson) says that delays are arising as Daniel Briggs (AKA Steven Hill) and Jim Phelps (AKA Peter Graves) are fighting for control of the IMF, Barney Collier (AKA Greg Morris) was been disavowed and "The Amazing Paris" (AKA Leonard Nimoy) is busy with PriceLine.com. Mimi Davis (AKA Barbara Anderson) is expected to take of the legal challenge base on her time with Ironside. The remaining cast of Cinnamon Carter (AKA Barbara Bain), Dana Lambert (AKA Lesley Ann Warren), Casey (AKA Lynda Day George), Rollin Hand (AKA Martin Landau, Mr. Internatinal Accent), Willy Armitage (AKA Peter Lupus) and Dr. Doug Robert (AKA Sam Elliott) will fill out the team.

Everyone's assuming the documents are forgeries, which hasn't really been proven. All that's been proven is that computer printing hasn't advanced terribly much over 3 decades.
A few questions:
1) If someone was going to go to the trouble of actually forging something, wouldn't it be far more damaging than these?
2) What do you think the actual damage to Bush is?
3) Does anyone know who started the rumor that these came from the Kerry camp?

You guys are forgetting one other possibility. Step 1).Rather knew the doc's were fakes. It is standard procedure, before a newscast about the White House is done, to let the White House vet the Doc's. CBS sent them over to the WH and the WH sent to back basically giving them the O.K. Rather did the story with the forgeries hoping the WH would deny the story.
Step 2) With the WH caught up in denial, it would then be made to appear by the MSM that the WH was covering up. Remember it's not the crime or even the cover-up but the appearence of a cover-up that is the most damning. This is where things went awry. I believe the WH knew they were fakes but also knew THEY could not deny it or they would get caught in a net. Dan forgot about the power of the new media, which is shocking considering that it was the new media that bought the Swift Boats to the forefront only a month ago. The WH didn't foget and was, in fact, counting on it. How does someone, 'buckhead', know that much about old typewriters?

You have to remember digging up Bush's Guard history is the subject of a current multi-prong attack by Kerry, the DNC and the 527's to take attention away from the SwiftVets. These documents were forwarded to CBS as a black ops effort to coincide with this new attack. Unfortunately for Kerry the CBS prong of attack has been obliterated by the blogshere and now his middle is exposed.

The simple answer is Kerry has gone nuts over the SwiftVets and with McAullife's blessing has ordered an ill-advised assault which includes dirty tricks.

There is still no proof that these documents are forgeries. Until that is proven, this is all a bunch of wing-nuttery.
Thanks for your time.

I'm still standing with the theory that the Dems are throwing the election this year, and they plan on doing it in such a way that would put another black cloud over Bush's next 4 years as the 2000 election did for the past 4 years.

I heard on the radio the other night that the Dems have around 10,000 lawyers who have already started questioning election procedure. Another time I heard (on the radio) that 'Kerry will win, and if he doesn't, it will be because Bush hacked the voting machines'. Another reference available from http://forum.johnkerry.com/lofiversion/index.php/t54943.html

If the left thinks Bush stole the election for another 4 years in office, by the time Hillary rolls out in 08, the left will have worked themselves in to such a state helping to provide the Dems with a good shot of a win after 4 years of being disenfranchised voters.

My vote is Rather's daughter, Robin, and Ben Barnes. These are people he would go down for.

I do not believe that this was intentional. In particular, you aren't going to get a live Kerry off most of the ballots. If he goes, in some states at least, Edwards moves up. But in others, he probably stays at the top of the ticket. Remember, it is slates of electors we are talking about, and they can vote for anyone they want. But a Kerry slate may not go along with a Hillary substitution.

And the Swifties are a bunch of bitter, mendacious old fucks. They served their country, now they serve their emperor. Pathetic.

You're forgetting the first rule of common sense -- never assume conspiracy when stupidity perfectly explains the act. Someone, maybe a Kerry staffer, but definitely a Kerry lover made up some documents, and some CBS staffer did something stupid and bought into them. No conspiracy needed, stupidity explains all.

There is still no proof that these documents are forgeries

I think you meant to say that there is still no proof these documents are real other than Dan Rather telling us that is so.

FIRST OF ALL, The forgery assumptions are not just based on the fonts and technology. There are military technical terminology issues, the fact that one of the military guys wasn't even in the service for 1.5 years but was alledged to tell Killian how to write the report, and the fact that the ORIGINAL documents were not made available.

Personally, I am glad that the DEMs are keeping this in the media because it is so obviously a lie to any halfway intelligent person. They are losing swing voters like crazy on this...

At least with the swift vets you have 20+ officers who worked directly with Kerry saying he is unfit...And many of them are Democrates...You can get 1-2 people to lie, but you can't get that many people to lie.

How many of Bushes comrades are coming out against him?

Hey, epoh (hope backwards), obviously you have spent little time checking into the forgeries. More than enough evidence has already proven them false.

We can't do your homework for you. At least the SwiftBoat heroes act like real mean.

P.S. Nice language, McAuliffe.

I note with interest that Mr. Kerry has still not resigned his Senate seat. Even while he was ahead in the polls and the pundits said it was his race to lose.

Beautiful!

Except that Hillary would have to be crazy to get in this late. Better to let Kerry burn this year and prepare herself for '08.

But a beautiful theory, nonetheless!

I agree with you up to a point: the goal is Hillary08 not Hillary04.

Yes, this is a plant to derail the Kerry campaign. CBS News and Dan Rather are the perfect pawns. They aren't in on the plan but they will act in a predictable manner, "forging" ahead with the story, giving it huge airtime, before putting their brains in gear.

Aslo, it happened just days after the Kerry campaign brought in a bunch of ex-advisors for the Clinton Administration.

However, there is no way that Senator Kerry will resign. Therefore, the 2004 Presidential election is over. The purpose of this dirty trick is ensure that Senator Hillary doesn't have to run against a President Kerry in 2008.

It's a great theory, but a tad paranoid.
Remember, the simplest answer is usually the correct one (Occam's Razor?).

Look at the frenzy of Bush-bashing the public has endured this year: the demo primaries, Fahrenheit 9/11, Moveon.org's "Bush is Hitler" ad contest, Richard Clark on 60 minutes, Kitty Kelly, etc.

Yet Bush is pulling away in the swing states as Kerry searches for some traction. The Dems are near panic. This "Rathergate" was another smear of Bush gone horribly wrong. The hate that Rather and CBSnews have for Bush made them a lttle too eager, and they didn't do any fact checking. The prime conceit of the left is that they think that it is a given that Bush is the antichrist. How could any intelligent person believe otherwise? The only Bush supporters are evangelical fanatics and Nazi warmongers, right?
Some democrat flack forged and slipped the memos to Dan, hoping to "ruin" Bush.

That's all. No grand plan here. No conspiracy.

CAN Hillary be elected POTUS? I'm not sure that the Constitution allows for a woman to hold that office. (Assuming that anyone cares about the Constitution anymore.)

Let's see the Dems come out with a gang of 300 Vets, half of whom being GOPs, who are convinced that Dubya is 'unfit to command'. This new 'smear' gang will also have to include a minimum of 30 officers (equal GOP/DEM spread) in coastal command who served over Kerry.

Can't be done. Lying only works with very small groups.

In other words, 'EPOH', grow up. Or if you can't then wake up.

You only have to be 35 and a natural-born citizen to be POTUS. I think those are the only two qualifications.

I buy the Hillary theory, except for 08 rather than now. Its too late to orchestrate events that culminate in victory the way the Clintons do so masterfully. However, I think the more likely scenario is that the DNC took some excitable campaign worker up on an offer to attempt sabotage and went for it. Dan knows the whole deal is fake, but he's leaving anyway and had his lawyers guarantee he can't be hurt. The DNC knew the deal was high risk but realized the game was over anyway. As to the idea that the future would be sacrificed also, well I think they just don't believe it. They saw Clinton trash the party and himself everyway possible and walk away with smirk intact. I side with them in this regard; the issue will gain no purchase past this election.

I wondered earlier what kind of nation-wide support Hillary has for a presidential bid. I meant to clarify that as meaning support among Democrats (I can be reasonably sure has little to no support among Republicans, who either are indifferent at best or hate her at the worst).

I see it everywhere, Hillary in '08! Hillary This and Hillary That! But I don't see it coming from the rank-and-file Democrats, just the media. Is this an invented candidacy?

The memos aren't real???

What?

You mean Dan's not perfect?

Was Hillary in Vietnam?

Interesting theory, but I think John Kerry is too ambitious to play the fall-guy. I mean, this is a guy who during a war (Vietnam) was having a buddy take battle reinactment photos of him for future career advancement purposes!

As for Hillary support, being a woman, and knowing several women, I'd vote for Al Sharpton before I'd vote for Hillary Clinton. She's never done a thing in her life but invite scandal.

Your tinfoil hat needs some adjusting.

BTW, Susan Estrich is not a member of Kerry's team. So much for "known facts"! That's some Drudge-like fact-checking!

As far as Kerry losing the election, "and losing it badly," please keep telling yourselves that. The more out of touch with reality you people are, the better for us.

And can you nutjobs get through a single post without mentioning Hillary? The fixation is quite pathological with you.

Unfortunately, reality is not cooperating with Bush/Cheney. Your only hope is to distract people with your paranoid delusions of conspiracy.

The Dems wanted the forgeries discovered.

They are not stupid enough to believe they could get away with the forgeries that are so badly done.

But it is not that they want Kery out and Hillary in, but rather....

The Dems need an October surprise, and they are setting themselves up to obtain it.

They know that there is nothing they can find on W that is real.

So here is their game plan. Create a forgery scandal that gets exposed. They had to make it simple to be absolutely sure it would be discovered. The bloggers could have exposed far more sophisticated frauds, but the Dems could not risk approaching the threshold of undiscoverable.

Then they prime the pump by talking about the possibility that the GOP (Rove) set them up. Then two days before the election, they bring out another forgery that is professionally done and difficult to expose, (they do have the criminal contacts and the lack of scruples, after all). The new forgery will implicate Rove and it will be too late to rebut.

I had this insight before you. However, I was wearing pajamas. As we now know, this invalidates my insight. A pair of pajamas was all that stood between me and greatness.

"There is still no proof that these documents are forgeries. Until that is proven, this is all a bunch of wing-nuttery."

Sorry, epoh, but you are the political equivalent of a Stict Six 24-hr Day Creationist.

All this has done is to show up the Democrat Party (for which I used to vote) as a dysfunctional gang of permanent adolescents with a single hatred, and without a single idea.

And this thread has demonstrated conclusively how incredibly shallow is the Democrats' bench these days. For example, only one governor of a top-10 state is a Dem, and he's a moderate one at that.

They bring forward Senators and governors of rinky dink states (Georgia, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Vermont) because that's all they've got any more.

Blacks don't vote for blacks simply because of their skin color

Never seen a Milwaukee election I take it...

I still haven't read anywhere why Rather is so vehemently digging his heels in and refusing to accept the fact that the documents are fake.
Could it be that if he acknowledges the documents are fake, he will have to disclose the source?

And could that source be the DNC?, Terry?, Skarry, Willie? Hilly? It would be interesting to find out.

I think Oliver Stone is behind this thing. He's getting ready to make a movie..........

Just how slow are you people? This story is real
old, it has been talked over by conservatives for
months.

We call it the "Hillary rescue" Kerry leaves,
she, under great pressure from the party, and
,dream on, the public leaves her job as senator
after saying she "would never" leave her senate
position, finally, with great sorrow at breaking
her word, relents and there she is, running for
president. We have laughed quite a bit over this
story, but always knowing this may be what the Clinton's and Soros may want. I suspect there is a big payback for Soros, he is not the type of man to not get a healthy payback in some way.

Then there is the running a man theory who would be sure to fail, as with Kerry who is the worst candidate for any position in any type of work.
If this is the plan it is going perfectly, he
is without a doubt a weak and shallow man who
blows with the wind, and the polls.

Hang on, he is going down. The Clintons and
Soros will be happy, Hillary will run in 08 and
lose to Rudy!

Perspective folks.You're damaging your credibility with this sort of wild speculation.

An outcome where that creep Rather is forced to "retire" is good enough.

<sarcasm> That's far fetched. It's obviously a Rupert Merdock power grab to aquire one of the "Big 3". </sarcasm>

Not such a unique theory, really. The "Torricelli" option has already been much discussed. All that's happening is the Katzenjammer Kids are running the Kerry Kampaign, which is sort of like a ship of fools being in charge of the village idiot. That the Clinton forces have become involved is simple self-interest in that Carville, Begala et al have careers to protect themselves, and are working to insulate other Democratic candidates they represent from the stench rising from the John Kerry fever swamp. Notice not one congressional candidate has appeared with him or asked for his help.

So nevermind Hillary; she is unelectable outside of New York. I doubt she'll even run for president in '08 because she can't take rejection and won't have anything to show for six years in the Senate. She's so shrill and socialist she'd make the crowds yearn for John Kerry. And her past associations will be paraded around endlessly --from the Black Panthers to the PRC. Not gonna happen.

This is a wrecked party. We're just waiting for the fireball.

i have to agree with carole on this one. a man does not make a company he's spent his professional life with look awesomely stupid unless there's another, higher loyalty involved, and what loyalty is greater than parents for their children? he's falling on his sword to protect his daughter. as for kerry quitting, not going to happen. if they didnt 86 dukakis theyre not gonna dump kerry. but the sudden arrival of the clintonistas in the kerry campaign makes me wonder, though. terry mcauliffe has always been the clintons' puppet; his job from day one has been to make sure that whoever the democrats nominated in 04 couldnt possibly win, guaranteeing a clear run for hilary in 08. as for the notion that there is no great groundswell of support for hilary in the country, well, there wasnt any great groundswell for here in new york either and the dem leadership practically handed her the nomination. she doesnt want to have to run against anyone meaningful; she wants, as much as possible, to be given the office she thinks she so richly deserves.

The documents are the product of DNC/CBS stupidity, pure and simple.

HOWEVER, all of the conspiracy and coutervailing theories *are* plausible descriptions of how the Dems can redeem themselves: I agree that the original plan was Hillory '08. The Problem is that Guiliani came out hinting during the RNC that he might be a contender in '08. That would be serious competition for HRC.

The Dems are bumfuzzled, but all of this pajama-hack flacking about koolade-quaffing HRC conspiracies has probably tipped the lemon-sucking libs to the recipe for lemonade.

Bruce Hayden makes an interesting comment:

"In particular, you aren't going to get a live Kerry off most of the ballots."

Picture, if you will (cue Twilight Zone theme song), a frustrated, bitter Move-On moonbat, convinced that Kerry can't beat Bush, but that Edwards, or Hillary, or Bill, or SOMEBODY else could. Now picture said moonbat with a scope-sighted rifle.

Who becomes the nominee if Kerry's ... not?

Who becomes the VP nominee? Hillary? Dean? Some smoke-filled room's consensus choice?

What if Kerry winds up spending weeks in an ICU somewhere, drifting in and out of consciousness, perhaps, but certainly not campaigning effectively?

Food for thought. What does the Constitution have to say about this? Or the Democratic Party bylaws?

[For the record, this is pure speculation. I am NOT advocating this course of action. I specifically recommend to any such moonbats that they GET a life, not try to take one.]

Sorry, not buying it.

Hillary was the clear-cut favorite for President in the Democratic Party well in advance of the '04 Primary. If Hillary wanted to be the Dem nominee in '04, she would have run. She didn't because she felt '08 would be a more hospitable year for a Democratic nominee. Given Bush's current poll numbers, she likely still does.

Since 1788 and before, there has been a very distinct 36-year cycle in this country. Now the Boomer cohort born 1946, Class of '68, is playing its endgame. As historian Paul Johnson notes, never in Western history has one generation accomplished less culturally, politically, and every other way while elevating its pretensions, yet bringing to ruin every major civilized tenet it encounters.

Kerry's campaign is evidence of final failure, representing a demographic transition of historic proportions. Recall Kipling's Song of the Bandar-log... Some laugh lines:

- "Windsurfing's a great teacher-- watch my speeches."

- If Kerry were an SUV, he'd roll over on speed-bumps.

- Vote Kerry: Plumber's Friend to the Democratic Party.

- Pique's tres chic in Mozambique!

- Prognathous is as Botox does.

- As Charlie Brown once said in "Peanuts",
"How can we lose when we're so sincere?"

Maybe it's too easy to lampoon this twit, a political cadaver before his time, but if he takes Dan Rather and others of that ilk down with him, what's not to like in TANG?

"Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Nice theory, but Occam's Razor is cutting against you.

Just watched Kitty Kelly on Hardball. Chris Matthews (of all people) made her look like a lying idiot. She couldn't answer his questions about her conspiracy theories vis a vis the Bush family. What a fruitloop!

Sorry. Kerry will be taken out with his own falsefications on his medals. Especially the "V" on the Silver Star.

If Hillary was going to come barreling forward, she has only until October 9th to do so, or her own "deadline" to come in, instead of Kerry, passes.

And, Bill's recent heart surgery complicates Hillary's race. What good wife leaves a man in such a state of recovery at home? (Even if nothing in their marriage rings true, it has to appear real enough to run for the presidency.)

No one else is in the wings.

And, Pat Cadell, who knows how Jimmy Carter just helped Chaves in Venezuela steal an election, is screaming that Kerry is taking the democrats to defeat? That was just as true at Kerry's convention as it is now.

Rather's manuever wasn't supposed to fail! The Bloggers are a complete surprise to the Mainstream media.

Heck, even Napoleon failed at Waterloo. The Prussians just copied his excellent battle techniques; and did one better. And, as Victor Hugo said: The man of calculus (Wellington), beat the man of genius. Because Napoleon's troops got caught in the field without an exit strategy.

Does it escape reason that Hitler also overshot reality with his war plans? It happens all the time.

To Barleymouse:

There is more proof of a six 24-hour day creation than there is for the documents being forged.

Don't get me wrong, I believe they are forged, too.

Remember, without us Evangelical Christians, Bush does not have a chance.

I just have a problem with you calling a liberal stupid by using a metaphor of a Christian.

Its a nice theory, but I don't think so. This ain't New Jersey, and I don't think a sudden swap of candidates at this late date is going to work. And I don't think either the story, or the forgeries are going to be that effective at altering the election results.

Look, the problem here is that nobody really cares what Bush did during Vietnam, except the folks who have been telling us for the last 30 years that Vietnam was an immoral war. And they ain't voting for Bush anyway. Bush is running on what he has done the last 4 years, and has a "life story" that includes "youthful indescretions" in his early years. He ain't the man he was, but then who is?

People really don't give a damn what Kerry did in Vietnam. Some are very upset with what he did after his return, (and I have to admit that I can't blame them.) Kerry's actions impact his campaign because he never reconciled the two disparate views of Vietnam. One in which he was "defending his country" and the second where it was an immoral war, where our troops were rampaging through south east asia in the manner of Jhengis Khan. It enforces the impression that Kerry is a flip flopper.

In other words, what happened 30 years in Bush's life, is largely irrelavant to the reasons to vote for the guy. It ain't what he is running on, and he admits to having had a wild early life. Kerry is the one for whom Vietnam is a problem, because that is why we are supposed to vote for him.

Ain't Instalanches fun? This comments on this post have now passed the "The Skunk Ape in Lafollette", and "What About Mary Magdelene", the former leaders. How to respond to 100 comments in a short space?

Well, I guess I should start by pointing out the obvious(at least, I thought it was obvious); this theory is a direct reaction to the loony left, as personified by Terry McAuliffe, claiming that the forged memos were a plot by Karl Rove. I just pointed out, with tongue planted firmly in cheek (I claimed I came up with the idea on the toilet for goodness sakes!(Although I have to admit I do some of my best thinking there...)). The sad part is that it does seem eerily plausible. After all, is this any more complex than the original Watergate conspiracy? Anyway, with that in mind, let's get to the comments.

First, thanks for the correction, bandito. Too many Franks in one sentence means I'm short a lot of beans. (I don't know what that means, but it is 3AM after all.)

jfwent: Batfuck insane? Really? Then maybe it's really Perot who's the guy behind it all...

And for those who pointed out the apparent contradiction between the inability to replace Kerry on the ballot, and my theory, the precedent has been set. It wasn't just that Torricelli withdrew, it was that election laws were overturned in order to get Lautenberg on the ballot. The legal reasoning was that following the law as written would deprive democrats of their franchise. I'm willing to bet that makes for a very convincing precedent in those states where the electors must vote for the nominated candidate.

For all those that point out that Hillary isn't the most popular person out there, IIRC, early in the primary season, she polled better than any of the nine dwarfs.

epoh, thanks for playing and remember to take your medication. In fact, you may need to up the dosage; your grip on reality appears a bit tenuous. And pass some to Cheney's third nipple as well; he needs to lighten up a bit.

Bob Hawkins, that's why I blog nekkid.

To Steve, who wrote "What if Kerry winds up spending weeks in an ICU somewhere, drifting in and out of consciousness, perhaps, but certainly not campaigning effectively?"

And the difference would be...? I would submit that Kerry in a coma might actually be better on the campaign trail than the circus we've seen over the last 6 weeks.

And I thought Bob Dole ran a bad campaign...

Thanks everyone for coming, and stick around; the really good stuff is yet to come...

Looks like you hit a nerve here!

Just read this whole blog...interesting. I would like to present one more theory. What if the documents were planted by the RNC? Piss-poor forgeries that beg to be discredited. The forgeries could be blamed on the DNC to hurt their candidate. As far as CBS goes, I agree with the groupthink and stupidity ideas let it pass.

Section9, there are 3 types of greys. You need to make some clarifications.

I think it was another clever trick by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I know for a fact that he stole my neighbors car on Labor day to use for a car bomb, and I'm pretty sure he dinged my car to warn me off exposing his evil deeds.

I beat you to it. I posted back on Sept. 9th:

I'll promote the conspiracy theory of the week here & now.
This sloppy forgery was created and put forth by HRC operatives to torpedo the Kerry campaign, giving HRC a shot at the White House in 2008.

First, the knit-picky (afterall, i am a HS teacher):
Qualification for POTUS - "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to
the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States." (article II, section 1) Do your homework. No where does it express, or imply, a required gender, race, language proficiency, etc.
Vietnam was not a WAR… it was a conflict. The US has not been to “war” since WW2.
Also, nowhere does Article II require a formal nomination such as provided by the Conventions, those are mere formality (which may be required by the Parties themselves? but not the Constitution, and that's all that matters...)

Alright, now that is taken care of, to my real points/questions.
This election is close. Neither side should fool themselves into thinking it will be a run-a-way. It will come down to voter turnout. Will all those crying out to stone Bush actually get out of their lazyboys and get to the polls? Only time will tell. At least the Nader-factor for “stealing” votes is out of the way in many significant states such as IL.
Hillary will run, but she may pull a Carole Mausley-Braun and jump ship before the primary. She’s a spotlight hog and more than likely would like to say she at least gave it a shot. That would put her in the history books as the first former First Lady to run for president (to my knowledge, at least). No matter what the outcome of ’04 she would have to run in ’08 because ’12 would be too late for a first bid due to a very superficial reason: age. She would be 60 during the ’08 campaign season and if she has any real hopes of being the first female pres (or even VP, though I don’t ever see her playing second fiddle) she is smart enough to know it must be done before whatever “looks” she may have fade. Heaven forbid a cosmetic surgery scandal! Plus, she needs to get her day in the sun out of the way soon enough for “rising star” Obama (gag me). Remember him from the convention?
Finally, something pertinent to the actual topic at hand: I tend to side with the “stupidity” rather than “conspiracy” theory. But not the stupidity of those involved, rather those involved banking on the stupidity and/or gullibility (either way) of the voting joe-schmoe public. That form of stupidity is very powerful for 2 reasons: 1. no one wants to admit they are uninformed/misinformed/underinformed when discussing politics with their equaly lacking friends, thus spreading the stupidity. 2. it's very common and widespread, strength in numbers. Do not overestimate the intellegence of the average US voter.
But, believe what you will as long as you read, ask questions, and become informed... do not just regurgitate someone else’s comments to sound intelligent.

Old documents, smear campains,and flat out lies'sounds like a presidential election to me . Why must we (The working american public)always be forced to pick the lesser of two evils ? I make under 50,000.00 yr. and for this past year since newyears day i've talked too 3,182 persons aged 20 to 89 none making more than 103,000.00 yr. and asked who they thought would make a good president ? I ended up with this, 21 Kerry,410 BUSH,884 Rev. J.Jackson,91 Clint Eastwood,123 Arnold whatshisnamer,652 ME(whoedathunkit),and774 for MARTHA STEWART. OUT OF ALL POLLED 17 OUT OF 3182 HAD NO OTHER COMMENT THE REST AND I DO MEAN ALL FOLLOWED WITH I REALLY DON'T CARE NONE HAVE MADE ANY REAL DIFFERENCE IN MY LIFE (AND YES THE 89 YR. OLD WAS IN THE 17 )SO HOPEFULLY ONE OF YOU BIG WIGS SHOULD BE ABLE TO SEE THAT YOUR SOO FAR OFF THE MARK IT IS'NT FUNNY AND THE MAIN SUBJECT TO COME UP WAS LAK OF ADEQUET HEALTH CARE ,CANADA HAS IT WHY DO'NT WE ? AND WHY NOT TAX RELIGEONS FOR 4 YRS. AND PAY FOR HEALTH CARE AND FIX THE BUGET IN ONE TERM AND I'LL BET WHOEVER CAN DO THIS OR TRY WITH OUT RELIGOUS INTERFEARENCE WOULD BE WRITTEN IN NEXT TERM EVEN IF HE DIDN'T RUN !